MSPA Wiki:Votes for Featured Articles
Archives 1 On this page, you may nominate, discuss and vote on articles to be the wiki's next Featured Article. Any article may be nominated at any time; however, each new nomination should be accompanied by a rationale as to why the nominator thinks the article is a suitable candidate for featuring. It doesn't have to be a particularly lengthy explanation, but it should consist of wholly substantive reasons (i.e. the quality of the article), not superficial ones (e.g. "ohmagerd Dave is so cool!"). That's not to say we don't like having little thematic nods or suchlike, just that they shouldn't be anything other than fun asides to the nomination. Please note that while all users may participate in discussions, only registered users may nominate articles. In addition, nominating is a privilege, which can be revoked for any user who consistently nominates articles that are clearly not up to standard. There is also no hard limit on how many articles any one user may nominate in a given timespan, but obviously this is subject to common sense. If one person nominates five articles in a month, it raises questions about how much thought is really going into their nominations. To nominate an article, simply create a new third-level heading in the Nominations section below, using a link to the article in question as the heading title. Use the existing entries as a guide if you aren't sure what to do. Below that should be the opening rationale for the nomination, which must be signed by the nominator (in accordance with the wiki's signature policy). Once a nomination has been made, all users are invited to discuss it. This is not a straight vote per se; rather, users should express further rationales (again, no length requirement, only substance) either for or against the article. Naturally, this may be subject to change as the article becomes cleaned up, outdated, or any such shift – this can provide fresh discussion. To make it clear what view is being expressed at a glance, such discussion should be in the form of bullet points prefixed with either "Support", "Oppose" or, if simply commenting on the article without expressing a view specifically about suitability for featuring, "Comment". If you change your opinion on a nominated article, do not remove your old comments. Instead, strike them out (like this) and add your new comment at the bottom of the discussion. Every two months, the administrative staff will take into account the various arguments for each article, and select the one they think has both good quality and ample support. There is no "clean slate" with each FA update – existing nominations remain with their discussion intact until such a time as they are either selected or, for whatever reason, removed. The user who initially nominates a given article is permitted to request a withdrawal; however, a rationale must be provided for this, too, and the decision of whether to comply rests with the staff. ;Here are some things to consider when nominating and discussing articles: *Is the article detailed and easily comprehensible? *Does the article have any red links, or links to redirects or disambiguation pages? If so, can they be fixed? *Does the article have a good number of images? Enough to be illustrative, but not too many. *Does the article have a good amount of MSPA links, without overloading on them? *Does the article, generally speaking, look tidy? If the article has any problems with the above criteria, please either refrain from nominating it, or make improvements to bring the quality up to a better standard – obvious flaws are just opposition bait when it comes to the discussion! And above all, remember that the Featured Article is intended to represent the best this wiki has to offer, not just a popularity contest. Ultimately, though, be bold! If you genuinely think an article is good, nominate it! We'd rather have a handful of nominations that aren't definitely perfect than too few nominations. As long as a nomination isn't completely off the mark, it will highlight an article that could easily become suitable with a little work! Nominations Doc Scratch Has been nominated several times in the previous system, each time being described as a well-done and informative page. Certain technical issues obstructed its selection on a number of those occasions, but these have since been resolved. That said, I am mostly nominating it at this stage so that we have an example nomination in place, so more proper supporting statements would be much appreciated for this :P God tier A very informative and recently cleaned up article about a very key game mechanic. 07:13, December 3, 2013 (UTC) *'Support:' I like this idea, as the gpd tier is very important in homestuck. 18:40, March 22, 2014 (UTC) *'Support:' I think it's past time to bring out the new and improved god tier page. Plus Cruxite has been up for more than a month, and though it's great we're putting emphasis on sburb elements, it got real old real fast. Plus I'm going to break the rule and put down a for no reason because this page really needs attention. I will forgive whoever deletes it when they decide to call attention to the front page of the entire wiki. Revitalysis 1:21, November 15, 2014 (UTC) *'Comment:' I think we should add the new info from Hussie's news post, and then we should have it up as the new featured article in time for December. 03:29, November 15, 2014 (UTC) **'Comment Support: '''I think this is a great idea, but as of right now (Nov 17) I have not seen the news post in the god tier page yet, and it has been about 9 days since that fascinating information has been converted to the wiki. The part on rose's death literally says "Rose Lalonde was mortally wounded by the Condesce after she attempted to avenge Kanaya, and thus her death was judged Heroic". At this rate (another 9 days of nothing) the article will not be prepared by November. Revitalysis 02:33, November 18, 2014 (UTC) **'Comment Support:' Just updated the powers and abilities section - rearranged it into sections describing immortality separate from other powers, listed each god tier permanent death as a separate case. Is this good enough for everyone? ' ' 22:01, November 23, 2014 (UTC) *** '''Comment Support Support: '''Read article and am satisfied. I will begin messaging the site's major contributers to garner support for the page. Revitalysis 22:27, November 23, 2014 (UTC) *'Support:' It really is about time we got the FA going again; now I think about it, December would've been the next one even if we'd started it back up as soon as the gigapause ended. So we get to not look stupid for not having immediately resumed :P And with the added details, God tier will be a worthy choice * '''Support': I agree, it's a very thorough article and Hussie's recent updates make it all the more relevant. ConcreteSunshine 16:56, November 23, 2014 (UTC) *'Support:' See above. * Comment: ' I think we should (if possible) highlight the '(Im)mortality section in it's feature on the front page, as the gt article is very long and I have no doubt that mostly everyone who has come to mspawiki since rose's death has gone to the article and seen none of hussies update, became dissilusioned, and left. We should definitely somehow make it very clear that that article has the new stuff in it if we want people to think it's worth clicking. ** Also, perhaps info about the general nature of Sburb's recognition of heroic/just? e.g. Sburb recognized vengeance as heroic to prevent players from becoming OP rather than moral reasons, so Just/heroic is interpreted in context of game fairness in addition to morals. Or how sburb determines intent by actions rather than thoughts. Noting those little rules would make a big difference on how much readers would appreciate the article, as they are currently more worried about how god tiers in the future might die rather than the ones already dead. Perhaps even adding a paragraph/section for known mortality mechanics, separate from the chronicles from moralities throughout the story? ** Things like this very slightly deviate from the formal tradition, but I think that it should be done regardless, because the readers are the ultimate priority of this site, and these deviations are quite reasonable, entirely canonically accurate, and would still flow well with the rest of the gt article. Revitalysis 23:50, November 23, 2014 (UTC) ***'Comment:' I think it may actually be warranted to consider splitting off god tier death judgment into its own article. We have about a week to go, so it's just about viable. Perhaps you'd care to something? I'll also take a look at it, probably tomorrow EDIT: I've started a discussion over on the article talk page *'Support:'though this already has overwhelming support I'm going to throw my my vote in the affirmative on top, I can't think of any better page to be featured personally. Whohoohuwhu (talk) 00:19, November 24, 2014 (UTC) *'Support:' For all the reasons already said. 14:48, November 24, 2014 (UTC) *'Comment:' I have started the proposed conditional immortality article in my sandbox. If this is completed soon, I will then make the article and nominate it. Please bear this in mind over the next few days if you wish to support specifically what is currently just a section of the god tier article **'Comment:' Even though I nominated the god tier article myself, your sandbox looks very well-written so far, and I'd be willing to shift my support to your new article for December. It'd certainly help make the GT page less bulky. 19:12, November 24, 2014 (UTC) **'Comment support:' I think this draft looks promising and would definitely consider supporting this new page instead. However, I think it needs a little more justification to stand as a page on its own, possibly going into Hussie's news post on the subject in a little more depth? ~~~~ *'Comment:' If this article is featured, I think the trivia section should be moved to the bottom of the page. As it is I feel it overshadows the gallery a bit too much. ~~~~ Problem Sleuth (character) Since there is the hiatus, now is the time to squeeze in the other part of MSPA. } 18:34, December 8, 2013 (UTC)